But after a while, it all reduces to ideology's axiomatic truths, and dismissal of any objection is nearly automatic - surely no one can deny that markets need complete deregulation to function best, or that the workers are oppressed and governments work for multinationals.
The problem with truth today is that at some point no one bothers to go through the whole reasoning anymore, let alone compare it to the day's reality. Workers' conditions are bad and their pay low, period. Everybody knows that.
Religion can be dismissed by pointing to Darwin, and that's that (even if the same people tend to object the idea of biological determination). Ideologies are more difficult to deal with because they are much more theoretized in a rational manner.
One deals with a whole system of ideas that stick together quite logically and are related to physical stuff (rather than fuzzy stuff like spirituality) Even so, in the end ideologies still represent a certain (subjective) view of the world, impregnate people much like religion does, make sometimes wild assumptions and declare bold goals (called ideals) - which in practice tend to look much like the faithful's Heaven, with a touch of logical justification to make it look credible to the critical mind. The consequence is that all this makes speaking against ideologies much more difficult than bringing a believer back on earth. The fact is, people need frameworks. They needed mysticism, they needed religion, now they need ideologies. We don't live inside ideologies, one way or the other - I still think crticial unbiased thinking possible. But we do need them, their axiomatic views that we like to believe, and their far-fetched ideals we like to dream of. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I still think critical unbiased thinking possible. But we do need them, their axiomatic views that we like to believe, and their far-fetched ideals we like to dream of.
??
it seems 'I' can jump from being part of 'We' at will!
Please clarify... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
"I" stands for myself alone, and while I recognize the humans' atavistic need for comfort-providing axiomatic truths, personally I still think we are able to leave aside our fears, our social conditioning and make use of our rational organ. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
But I see it more like connected to our affective side: a need for frameworks, for certainties, for a determined world, which is reassuring. The unknown renders insecure and scares, religions and ideologies bring explanations, comfort, a feeling of well being. Also a need of dreams to motivate us to a "better future"- like the communist society for marxists, or the heaven for the christian or muslim faithful.
i couldn't agree more with this part. convention is soothing...all the way to madness...not always, but often enough to create a breed that values nonconformity for its own sake, an opposite extreme.
all humans respond to narratives, especially new ones, especially ones that can keep a flicker of hope alive to those in despair. this vulnerability has been turned into a cash cow by religions, huddle together, muddle through...
a better future is more likely if we become seriously more realistic, this is a truism i know, but it's still true. for that we may need to achieve a level of spiritual security that enables us to better use that organ to which you make reference.
from what i understand from your posts, i believe you would agree, is that so? to give up fantasy we need realities that don't encourage escapism so much. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
If we become seriously more realistic -- learn to recognize in ourselves when the affective need is kicking in, and learn to detach and see what that leads to. Religion and ideology are approached affectively , even when we don't realize it. We feel right or left even as we pretend to be rational. Subjectivism, hot-blooded-ness, affective response, are all human. I even wonder if getting sucked into this isn't built-in?...because the idea would be to be able to recognize the phenomenon and be able to play the devil advocate for a second (critical thinking, by using the aforementioned organ).
As to realities that encourage escapism, you know, from stories of ships caught in storm, I always retained the image of the captain washed by the waves yet still there. It's all a matter of point of view. In the most dire situation, escapism can be turned into heroic activism - and used to change those realities. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
As to realities that encourage escapism, you know, from stories of ships caught in storm, I always retained the image of the captain washed by the waves yet still there. It's all a matter of point of view. In the most dire situation, escapism can be turned into heroic activism - and used to change those realities.
thanks V, though i wonder, do you mean dreaming of the heroic captain was escapism for you?
talking of pragmatism, here's something you might like... Insurgent American » Blog Archive » Politics is Food is Politics
The argument from the archaic left, i.e., that the Food Underground is individualistic voluntarism, has copped to the idea that all practical, local palliatives are somehow ineffective. This is a deeply fallacious argument. It means we still see the world exclusively through our left-to-right, linear, and purely ideological continuum. We still see politics as the persuasion of the word, and our deeds being limited to either symbolic expressions of resistance or aiming some mythical "mass blow" (a military metaphor, which implies military organization and discipline). Support our Program, and we will win Political Power, and change the Policies, and all will be well.
this is the top social priority, i believe... the whole article is wonderful. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Thanks for the link, I'll try to read it later. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Rational Reason will still be based on certain facts, however, not on others, and there will always be facts outside the viewer's vision, hence there will be bias.
Rational Reason in itself is an unattainable ideal, not all that much different from the fuzzy stuff spirituality is based on - with the difference that rational Reason claims objectivity (a notion of power), while spirituality knows how fuzzy it appears.
Do you estimate in good faith that the new pragmatism that accompanies the declared [by you] death of ideologies is based on rational Reason?
Of course you can say our basis for reasoning are subjective (different from a person to the other), relative (depending on the point of view). Humans are subjective by definition, and the universe is infinitely complex and nuanced, with an infinite number of dimensions. When you say that perfect rationality is an utopia, I'll add: of course it is, all ideals are. No one could objectively and reasonably contradict you on any of these points - your reasoning is flawless :)
I replied to this kind of questions on the first Ideology blog in two ways: - one: rational pragmatism is not about some absolute, scientifical determination of the world; I believe that the "fuzzy" stuff (only guessed to be there, like the black matter - or the spirituality!) is at least as important as the directly observable and measurable stuff; we have probably little chance to comprehend the universe with a degree of exhaustivity comparable to that of God's :) Rational pragmatism is not a philosophy, doesn't pretend to explain the world, it is about the approach to practical issues - reduce unfair inequalities, improve living standards, protect the planet, scientifical progress, peace etc. Start up without assumptions or made-up truths; approach issues with an open mind, and with objectivity and fairness as a goal. Search the optimal solutions taking into account all sides and factors. They won't be perfect, but they will likely be the best.
- the second answer: this kind of criticism is quite general and belongs to the philosophical sphere; I'm speaking real-life politics here: in practice, we can actually find a lot more precise answers to problems than one might suspect. Ideologists tend to philosophise and idealise; real life is much more down to earth. In a way, they're doing themselves a pleasure by basking in those fine, abstract theories (and mess up everybody else's life). The real world is much more prosaic and issues often have much simpler solutions than we might suspect while philosophising.
A more indirect answer to your question is my brief exchange with melo at the very beginning of this thread.
I'll also point out that I merely intended to bring to attention a phenomenon already on the way. More and more feminists today speak about pragmatism and refuse male vilification. One week does not pass without hearing a politician (of any colour) emphasizing a will to look for the best solution, rather than promote some ideology. I felt this is rather striking, hence these two blogs about the death of ideology. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
And as an aside, I thought we'd agreed that "pragmaticist" sloganeering did not necessarily correspond to actual pragmatic policy?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
You doubt it, yet you are too, if I may, one living proof of it :)
I don't refer to rational Reason.
Start up without assumptions or made-up truths
It all begins with very small things. Maybe a word said, the tone of a voice, will trigger a reaction in us that we hadn't planned and that we cannot control. Maybe the voice sounded so much like aunt Martha or you heard that word from your teacher when you didn't do your homework.
You will feel free from assumptions and above made-up truths but social conditioning, experience are often stronger than our good will. Rational Reason is quite abstract, cold and scientific. You had mentioned Newton's laws, which is why I don't subscribe to being a reasonable rationalist or a rational reasonalist.
I'm speaking real-life politics here: in practice, we can actually find a lot more precise answers to problems than one might suspect.
The real world is much more prosaic and issues often have much simpler solutions than we might suspect
The problem is that precise answers to problems and simple solutions rarely allow us to conclude that policy makers were led by rational Reason.
Einstein's relativity is political philosophy. Newton's Laws are politics applied to every day life; the former is becoming more like a historical phenomenology of politics, while the latter is becoming independent and intelligent enough to make a difference. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Maybe I'm just stupid, but could you bend it in neon for me?
we have probably little chance to comprehend the universe with a degree of exhaustivity comparable to that of God's :)
